Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Dharminder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)
The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 26 of 2020, dated 26.02.2020, registered at Police Station Kihar, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of the F.I.R.
2. Briefly stated, the brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that informant/respondent No. 4 made a complaint to the police, asserting that he was executing the work of construction of the Bhandal Panoga Bridge over the river Siul. He entered into an agreement with the present petitioners for the fabrication, launching, erection and transportation of steel up to the site for Rs.64,00,000. He transferred Rs.15 lakhs to the petitioners. The petitioners assured the informant that they would complete the work within 135 days. However, the petitioners did not pick up the phone after receiving the money. The department imposed a penalty of Rs.14,00,000 and withheld the money due to the informant. The informant made a complaint to the police station, Kihar on 23.01.2020. The petitioners visited the polic
Mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intention is established from the outset, as per Section 420 IPC.
Mere non-payment in business supply transaction does not constitute cheating under IPC Section 420 absent proof of dishonest inducement at inception; such civil disputes warrant FIR quashing to preve....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the contents of the FIR disclose commission of any offence, the same cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The court held that an FIR cannot be quashed if it discloses cognizable offences, and allegations of mala fide do not suffice for quashing proceedings.
The court held that misrepresentation in a land sale transaction constituted cheating under Section 318(4) of BNS, and the FIR could not be quashed as it disclosed a cognizable offence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be sparingly used and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of....
The court held that allegations arising from a civil dispute cannot constitute a criminal offence, and continuation of such proceedings amounts to an abuse of the legal process.
The court ruled that an FIR cannot be quashed based on allegations of mala fides if it discloses cognizable offences, emphasizing the necessity of a trial to assess the truth of the allegations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
